- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SM (withdrawal of appealed decision: effect) (Pakistan)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, entered the United Kingdom as a visitor in 2006 and claimed asylum in 2010 on the basis of fear of harm from her abusive former husband in Pakistan. The Secretary of State issued a removal decision in May 2010, which the appellant appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal in July 2010. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted, but the Upper Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal in March 2011, finding no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal against the Upper Tribunal's decision, identifying an error of law related to the failure to consider the best interests of the appellant's son and the risk of ostracism in Pakistan. The case was remitted to the Upper Tribunal for a fresh hearing. During the fresh hearing process, the Secretary of State sought to withdraw the original May 2010 removal decision on the basis that it failed to consider the best interests of the appellant's son as required by legislation. The appellant contested that the Upper Tribunal's consent was required for such withdrawal under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
The Upper Tribunal convened a panel to consider two main questions: whether the Secretary of State requires the Tribunal's consent to withdraw an appealed decision, and the effect of such withdrawal on appellate proceedings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Does rule 17 (withdrawal) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 require the Secretary of State to obtain the Upper Tribunal's consent before withdrawing the decision against which a person appealed to the First-tier Tribunal?
- What is the effect on appellate proceedings in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal of the withdrawal by the Secretary of State of the decision against which a person appealed under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?
- How should the Upper Tribunal proceed following withdrawal by the Secretary of State of the decision against which the appeal is brought?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended that the Secretary of State must obtain the Upper Tribunal's consent under rule 17 before withdrawing the appealed decision.
- The appellant argued that the withdrawal of the decision was directly connected to the case before the Tribunal, especially concerning Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The appellant emphasized the importance of substantive determination due to the appeal's history and the significance of the issues raised, including best interests of the child and risk of ostracism.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Secretary of State submitted that rule 17 does not cover the decision appealed but only the "case" in the Tribunal, and the decision to withdraw is an executive function not fettered by the Tribunal's consent.
- The respondent argued that the withdrawal of the decision appealed does not automatically end the appeal or deprive the Upper Tribunal of jurisdiction.
- It was contended that any determination of the appeal after withdrawal would be academic and should not be pursued absent good reason.
- The respondent relied on legislative provisions and case law emphasizing the Secretary of State's primary decision-making role in immigration matters.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R (on the application of) Evgenyi Chichvarkin and Antonina Chichvarkina v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1858 (Divisional Court) and [2011] EWCA Civ 91 | Power of the Secretary of State to withdraw immigration decisions; withdrawal not unlawful even if to avoid Tribunal becoming primary decision-maker | Confirmed that rule 17 does not empower the Tribunal to prevent withdrawal of decisions by the Secretary of State; emphasized executive primacy in immigration decision-making. |
| Munir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 32 | Recognition of immigration powers conferred by statute and Royal Prerogative | Supported the principle that the Secretary of State holds primary decision-making authority in immigration matters. |
| AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1076 | Obligation of Tribunal to consider grounds raised in section 120 notice even if not in original application | Distinguished for purposes of primary decision-making principle; emphasized comprehensive consideration of grounds in appeals. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450 | Discretion to hear academic public law appeals; requirement of good public interest reasons | Guided the Tribunal's approach to whether to proceed substantively when an appeal might be academic. |
| Zoolife International Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWHC 2995 | Principles on hearing academic public law cases; existence of similar cases and non fact-sensitive issues as criteria | Applied to balance resource use and public interest in deciding whether to hear substantive appeals after withdrawal. |
| R (on the application of) Osman Omar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3448 (Admin) | Consideration of whether issues remain live or have become academic; public importance and similarity of cases as factors | Supported the Tribunal’s cautious approach to hearing appeals that may be academic but raise important principles. |
| KF and others v Birmingham Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust [2010] UKUT 185 (AAC) | General principle that appellate courts decline to hear academic appeals unless public interest justifies | Reinforced the principle of restraint in hearing academic appeals; acknowledged circumstances where guidance is needed. |
| CS (Tier 1 - home regulator) USA [2010] UKUT 163 (IAC) | Consent under rule 17 required for withdrawal of appeal decision; importance of public interest in guidance | Distinguished as involving a concession; court emphasized importance of public interest in refusal of consent to withdrawal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 and concluded that the term "case" does not include the Secretary of State's immigration decision appealed against. The power to withdraw such a decision rests with the Secretary of State as a matter of public law and is not fettered by the Tribunal's consent. This aligns with established case law, notably the Chichvarkin cases, which confirm the Secretary of State's primary decision-making role and the lawfulness of withdrawal absent bad faith or irrationality.
The Court analyzed the statutory framework under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, particularly section 104, which comprehensively sets out when appeals cease to be pending. Withdrawal of the decision appealed is not listed as a means by which an appeal ends. Therefore, the Upper Tribunal retains jurisdiction under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law and to re-make the decision, notwithstanding the withdrawal.
The Court rejected the respondent's submission that appeals become academic upon withdrawal. It noted statutory provisions allowing appeals to continue in certain circumstances despite the grant of leave, and emphasized that the Tribunal's functions under section 86 continue. The Court recognized that while formal disposal (such as dismissal without substantive determination) may often be appropriate after withdrawal, substantive determination is sometimes warranted, particularly where public interest, guidance, or legal defects in the withdrawn decision exist.
The Court considered factors relevant to deciding between formal and substantive disposal, including the principle that the Secretary of State is ordinarily the primary decision-maker, the need for legal or procedural guidance, reasons for withdrawal, appeal history, timing, and the parties' views. It also acknowledged the caution expressed in public law cases about hearing academic issues, requiring exceptional circumstances and public interest justification.
The Court applied these principles to the present case, noting the respondent's withdrawal was necessary to reconsider the appellant's leave in light of the best interests of her child. However, it found no indication that the respondent's view on refugee status had changed. Given the case's complexity and potential for country guidance, the Court declined to dispose of the appeal formally and instead adjourned the hearing to allow for further developments.
Holding and Implications
1. The Upper Tribunal ruled that rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 does not require the Secretary of State to obtain the Tribunal's consent to withdraw an immigration decision appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The withdrawal of the appealed decision does not terminate the Upper Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law, nor does it prevent the Upper Tribunal from re-making the decision in the appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
3. The Upper Tribunal may dispose of the appeal formally or substantively after withdrawal, guided by the overriding objective and relevant factors such as the primary decision-maker principle, need for legal guidance, reasons for withdrawal, appeal history, and parties' views.
The direct effect of this decision is to preserve the proper balance between executive and judicial functions in immigration matters, affirming the Secretary of State's primacy while allowing the Tribunal to fulfill its appellate role effectively. It clarifies that withdrawal of an appealed decision does not automatically end an appeal or render Tribunal determinations merely advisory. No new precedent beyond the interpretation of rule 17 and the interplay of statutory provisions was established. The case was adjourned for further procedural steps rather than disposed of finally.
Alert